More about intuitiveness
Day twenty-eight -- more about intuitiveness. Question -- from "Trailsend" -- 1. Why is (man, below) "foot" and not "leg"? 2. I did not find your encoding of the English word "at" to provide me with a "mental image which expresses the meaning of that word directly" 3. Because different people think differently (sometimes very differently), you will not find a single root system capable of "directly" (I would use the word intuitively) representing all ideas for any given people group. Answer -- Why is (man, below) "foot" and not "leg"? Why is (f,o,o,t) foot, not hand? Why is "Trailsend" you, not Tienzen? These are the same type of questions. In fact, for "every" (no exception) axiomatic system (logic system), it is "always" arbitrary defined by some initial points (its definitions and axioms). Arithmetics is a perfect axiomatic system. Yet, when 1 + 1 = 2, then 2 + 1 =3 when 1 + 1 = 10, then 11 + 1 = 100 when 7 + 1 = 10, then 17 + 1 = 100 etc., etc., Again, geometry is also a perfect axiomatic system, Yet, when parallel axiom has a value 1, it is Euclidean geometry. when parallel axiom has a value 0, it is Elliptic geometry. when parallel axiom has a value infinite, it is Hyperbolic geometry. In physics, If an item's mass is greater than 100 hydrogen atoms, it behaves according to Newton's law. If an item's mass is smaller than 100 hydrogen atoms, it behaves according to Quantum Mechanics. If a particle's velocity smaller than 50% of the light speed, it behaves according to Newton's law. If a particle's velocity higher than 50% of the light speed, it behaves according to Relativity Theory. In logic, if function T (truth value) has only two values (0, 1), it is a formal logic. if function T (truth value) has more than two values, it is a fuzzy logic. In fact, we can write this into a law, Law of axiomatic system (logic system): For "every" axiomatic system (logic system), it is "always" arbitrary defined by some initial points (its definitions and axioms). Why is (man, below) "foot" and not "leg"? Why not? What is the problem? One thing about an axiomatic system is that after some initial arbitrary defined points, a pathway (logic) emerges. This is also the case for PreBabel. After some initial vocabulary, the arbitrariness for the later words is getting smaller, such as, (sky, water), etc.. I am a bit surprised that my "three thread spider web analogy" did not get this point (arbitrary and logic) across. quote="Trailsend" I did not find your encoding of the English word "at" to provide me with a "mental image which expresses the meaning of that word directly" /quote What kind of mental image that the code (a, t) gives to you for expressing the meaning of the word "at"? Does the code (a, t) give any kind of mental image, "at all"? (dot, stop) does give some kinds of mental image, if not for the mental image of "at". One simple example, a very beautiful girl Nancy has a small birth mark on her left cheek. With that mental image of the birth mark, I was able to remember her name is Nancy while I was and still am very bad about remembering names. Is that mental image expressing the meaning of the word token Nancy? quote="Trailsend" I did not find your encoding of the English word "at" to provide me with a "mental image which expresses the meaning of that word directly" /quote I do not find this question or critique which has any relevancy to PreBabel. As "every" axiomatic system is a "pathway" building process, the later words of PreBabel will be closer and closer to provide a mental image which expresses the meaning of that word directly, such as, (talk, box), (movie, box), etc.. This is, in fact, the driving the cattle process, with a few strategically placed cowboys to move a herd of cattle to a certain direction. quote="Trailsend" Because different people think differently (sometimes very differently), you will not find a single root system capable of "directly" (I would use the word intuitively) representing all ideas for any given people group. /quote How so true it is! People are all different, indeed. Then, must we re-write Newton's law because that people are different?! If anyone wants to "learn" Newton's law, he must learn the "basics" of the system regardless of how different he is from the others. If anyone wants to learn PreBabel, he must learn the "basics" of the PreBabel, and whatever difference he has from the others matters no more. The basics of the PreBabel will lead all people to a pre-determined direction regardless of how greatly different they, indeed, are. In (or by) all means, you do not have to take my words. In addition to as a new philosophy of linguistics, the PreBabel is testable. The tests, the test plans and the test results are the final judgement for its verdict. If the PreBabel fails the tests on the point 3 (the criterion), all the above good reasons are simply talking talks. During the previous posts, I did make many test plan suggestions and did report many test results. Yet, you "all" conveniently over looked them. Let's begin talking about the real issue, the test plans and the test results (many of them are already done and available and were reported in some previous posts). Signature -- PreBabel is the true universal language, it is available at http://www.prebabel.info